Dacia Nova

Which Dacia Nova version to buy

Both versions share the same years (1995-01-01 to 2000-12-31), the same Liftback body, the same Manual 5-speed gearbox, the same FWD layout, the same 44-litre tank, and the same 120 mm ground clearance. The choice is therefore not “which generation” — there is only 1 generation — but which engine: 1.4 MT at 62 hp or 1.6 MT at 72 hp.

Both versions share the same years (1995-01-01 to 2000-12-31), the same Liftback body, the same Manual 5-speed gearbox, the same FWD layout, the same 44-litre tank, and the same 120 mm ground clearance. The choice is therefore not “which generation” — there is only 1 generation — but which engine: 1.4 MT at 62 hp or 1.6 MT at 72 hp.

On the given figures, 1.6 MT is the stronger car by 10 hp (72 vs 62) and 29 Nm (122 vs 93). It is 1 second quicker to 100 km/h (17 s vs 18 s) and 10 km/h faster at the top (160 vs 150). The extra mass is 20 kg kerb (930 vs 910) and 20 kg gross (1355 vs 1335). Fuel consumption is not measured for either version, so economy cannot decide the purchase.

If the numbers that matter to you are acceleration, top speed, and torque at lower rpm, 1.6 MT is the version the data favour. If the numbers that matter are kerb weight and the smaller displacement, 1.4 MT is the lighter, smaller-capacity option — 910 kg and 1397 cm³ against 930 kg and 1557 cm³.

Generations compared (only one exists)

1 generation ran from 1995-01-01 to 2000-12-31. Body: Liftback. Versions in this generation: 2 — 1.4 MT and 1.6 MT. There is no second generation in the data, so there is no restyle to compare, no later gearbox, and no later drive layout. Every difference below is inside this single generation.

What did not change between the two versions: Gasoline fuel type, 4 cylinders, Inline layout, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, compression 9.2, fuel 95, Manual, 5 gears, FWD, tank 44 litres, ground clearance 120 mm, front suspension Independent, spring, rear suspension Independent, spring, front brakes Disc, rear brakes Drum. Wheel sizes are not measured on both. CO2 is not measured. Eco class is not measured. Engine position is not measured.

What did change: displacement, power, torque, peak-rpm points, bore and stroke, 0–100, top speed, kerb weight, gross weight.

Engine and specs: 1.4 MT vs 1.6 MT

1.4 MT engine: 62 hp (46 kW) at 5500 rpm, 93 Nm at 3500 rpm, 1397 cm³, Gasoline, 4 cylinders, Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, compression 9.2, bore and stroke 76 × 77, fuel 95.

1.6 MT engine: 72 hp (53 kW) at 5000 rpm, 122 Nm at 2500 rpm, 1557 cm³, Gasoline, 4 cylinders, Inline, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Carburetor, compression 9.2, bore and stroke 77 × 83.6, fuel 95.

Displacement gap: 1557 − 1397 = 160 cm³ more in 1.6 MT (about 11.5% larger than 1397). Power gap: 72 − 62 = 10 hp (about 16.1% more than 62). Torque gap: 122 − 93 = 29 Nm (about 31.2% more than 93). Power in kW: 53 − 46 = 7 kW.

Power per litre (hp ÷ displacement in litres): 1.4 MT 62 ÷ 1.397 ≈ 44.4 hp/l. 1.6 MT 72 ÷ 1.557 ≈ 46.2 hp/l. The larger engine is not only bigger; it also makes slightly more power per litre on these figures.

Torque per litre: 1.4 MT 93 ÷ 1.397 ≈ 66.6 Nm/l. 1.6 MT 122 ÷ 1.557 ≈ 78.4 Nm/l. The torque advantage is larger than the power advantage.

Peak power arrives 500 rpm earlier on 1.6 MT (5000 vs 5500). Peak torque arrives 1000 rpm earlier (2500 vs 3500). On the given rpm points, 1.6 MT is the engine that puts its maximum torque lower in the rev range.

Stroke is the larger geometric change: 83.6 mm on 1.6 MT versus 77 mm on 1.4 MT (difference 6.6 mm). Bore is 77 mm versus 76 mm (difference 1 mm). Compression is the same 9.2 on both. Both are Carburetor, boost No.

Both gearboxes are Manual with 5 gears. Both are FWD. There is no Automatic version and no other drive type in the data, so the gearbox and drive columns do not split the choice.

Performance, mpg, and what the extra capacity buys

0–100 km/h: 1.4 MT 18 s, 1.6 MT 17 s. Difference: 1 second. Top speed: 1.4 MT 150 km/h, 1.6 MT 160 km/h. Difference: 10 km/h.

Kerb weight per horsepower: 1.4 MT 910 ÷ 62 ≈ 14.68 kg/hp. 1.6 MT 930 ÷ 72 ≈ 12.92 kg/hp. 1.6 MT carries about 1.76 kg less per horsepower despite the 20 kg extra kerb mass, because the 10 hp gain outweighs the 20 kg.

Gross weight per horsepower: 1.4 MT 1335 ÷ 62 ≈ 21.53 kg/hp. 1.6 MT 1355 ÷ 72 ≈ 18.82 kg/hp.

Fuel consumption city is not measured for 1.4 MT and not measured for 1.6 MT. Highway is not measured for both. Combined is not measured for both. MPG is therefore not a deciding number in this catalogue: there is no measured city, highway, or mixed figure to compare. CO2 is not measured for both. Eco class is not measured for both.

What the extra 160 cm³ buys, in arithmetic on these data: +10 hp, +7 kW, +29 Nm, −1 s to 100 km/h, +10 km/h top speed, +20 kg kerb, +20 kg gross, peak torque 1000 rpm earlier, peak power 500 rpm earlier. There is no price in the data, so “extra money” cannot be stated as a currency amount; the extra on the spec sheet is the list above.

Dimensions, weight, and clearance

Kerb weight: 1.4 MT 910 kg, 1.6 MT 930 kg. Difference: 20 kg (about 2.2% more than 910). Gross weight: 1.4 MT 1335 kg, 1.6 MT 1355 kg. Difference: 20 kg. Payload implied by gross minus kerb: 1.4 MT 1335 − 910 = 425 kg. 1.6 MT 1355 − 930 = 425 kg. Payload is the same 425 kg on both versions.

Ground clearance: 120 mm on 1.4 MT and 120 mm on 1.6 MT. No generation later in the data raises or lowers it.

Tank: 44 litres on both. Wheel sizes: not measured for 1.4 MT, not measured for 1.6 MT. Suspension and brakes do not split the choice: Independent, spring front and rear; Disc front; Drum rear on both.

Problems and reliability (what this catalogue measures)

This dataset does not list fault rates, recall counts, or reliability scores. Those values are not measured for 1.4 MT and not measured for 1.6 MT. Shared hardware that is measured and identical: Carburetor, boost No, Manual 5, FWD, Disc front, Drum rear, Independent, spring at both axles. Nothing in the numbers says one version is more or less reliable than the other.

What the numbers do say: both engines share compression 9.2 and fuel 95. The mechanical split is displacement, output, and the 20 kg mass step, not a different gearbox, drive, or brake type.

Which version to choose

Choose 1.6 MT if you want the higher output and the quicker measured performance in this generation: 72 hp, 122 Nm, 17 s to 100 km/h, 160 km/h, 46.2 hp/l, 12.92 kg/hp. You accept 20 kg more kerb weight and 1557 cm³ instead of 1397 cm³. Peak torque is at 2500 rpm, which is 1000 rpm below the 1.4 MT peak at 3500 rpm.

Choose 1.4 MT if you want the lighter, smaller-capacity car in the same Liftback: 910 kg, 1397 cm³, 62 hp, 93 Nm, 18 s, 150 km/h. You give up 10 hp, 29 Nm, 1 second, and 10 km/h. Payload stays 425 kg, clearance stays 120 mm, tank stays 44 litres.

Do not choose by generation: there is only 1 generation (1995–2000), two versions, one body (Liftback). Do not choose by mpg: city, highway, and mixed consumption are not measured. Do not choose by wheels: wheel sizes are not measured. Do not choose by gearbox or drive: both are Manual, 5 gears, FWD.

Exact version names as in the database: 1.4 MT, 1.6 MT.